Heard Mr. Rizwan Ahmad, learned counsel for applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and Mr. Shobhit Pathak, learned counsel for opposite party No.2.
This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging entire proceedings of Case No. 3 of 2017 (State of U.P. and another Vs. Lavi @ Mukul Dev) under sections 307, 324, 504, 34 IPC, P.S. Katghar, District, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board Moradabad.
At the very outset, learned counsel for applicant submits that dispute between the parties is purely a private dispute. Parties have amicably settled their dispute outside the Court. On the basis of settlement so entered between parties, a compromise application was filed before the Court below. Photo copy of the same has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the affidavit.
On the aforesaid premise, learned counsel for applicant submits that since the dispute is purely a private dispute and parties have amicably settled their dispute, State cannot have any objection to the disposal of above mentioned case on the basis of compromise. He further contends that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of aforesaid case.
A counter affidavit has been filed by victim with regard to compromise so entered between the parties and the opposite parties will have no grievance in case the present application is decided in terms of compromise.
This Court is not unmindful of the judgements of the Apex Court in the cases of:
1. B.S. Joshi and others Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003)4 SCC 675
2. Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation[2008)9 SCC 677]
3. Manoj Sharma Vs. State and others ( 2008) 16 SCC 1,
4. Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303
5. Narindra Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab ( 2014) 6 SCC 466, wherein the Apex Court has categorically held that compromise can be made between the parties even in respect of certain cognizable and non compoundable offences. Reference may also be made to the decision given by this Court in Shaifullah and others Vs. State of U.P. And another [2013 (83) ACC 278]. in which the law expounded by the Apex court in the aforesaid cases has been explained in detail. Reliance has also be placed upon judgement of Apex Court in Yogendra Yadav Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in (2014) 9 SCC 653, wherein it has been held that compromise can be entered into in matter under section 307 IPC.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as noted herein above, and also the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the court is of the considered opinion that no useful purpose shall be served by prolonging the proceedings of above mentioned complaint case.
Accordingly, the proceedings of Case No. 3 of 2017 (State of U.P. and another Vs. Lavi @ Mukul Dev) under sections 307, 324, 504, 34 IPC, P.S. Katghar, District, pending in the Court of Principal Judge, Juvenile Justice Board Moradabad, are hereby quashed.
The application is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 7.1.2021 Arshad